#for streaming services like HBOmax and disney+ too

[br1ghtestlight]

it's funny bcuz watching tv with subtitles/captions theyre just..... wrong. like straight up misspell words or characters names, inaccurate timings and its clear they're following an imported written script and not what the characters are actually saying because the subtitles are inaccurate in a way where you can tell that's what was ORIGINALLY written before the actor changed it during the scene. drives me crazy but also im used to it now. somehow pirating sites actually have more accurate and readable subtitles than actual streaming services

im always like i could fix you. literally if you put in ANY amount of effort these captions would not be such a fucking mess. i could do better than this!!!! ANYBODY COULD!!!!!!

[sleepykittypaws]

Best and Worst of 2022

Remember last year when I thought 183 new Christmas movies were too many?

Well, the joke is most definitely on me, because this year there were so many more. 243 to be exact, a 33% year-over-year increase, and that's just across broadcast, cable and streaming. If you add in new holiday titles available via digital purchase/rental, DVD and/or theatrical-only, the total jumps to 316 all-new Christmas movie offerings for 2022, the bulk of which premiered in the final 9 weeks of the year, across a record 53 linear networks and streaming platforms  (see below).

Hallmark-43

Lifetime-26

Tubi-21

Netflix-14

GAF-14

UPtv-12

Hulu-10

BET/BET+-10

Prime Video-6

HBOMax-5

Crackle-5

PureFlix-5

ION-4

VH1-4

Discovery+-4

FoxNation-4

CBS-3

AMC+-3

UPFaith&Fam-3

Roku-3

Freevee-3

ViX+-3

TVOne-2

OWN-2

Showtime-2

Starz-2

Shudder-2

Xumo-2

Vudu-2

NBC-1

CW-1

Bounce-1

Paramount Network-1

Comedy Central-1

Cartoon Network-1

Nick-1

LMN-1

BYU TV-1

AppleTV+-1

Disney+-1

Epix-1

Britbox-1

Pluto-1

Plex-1

Pantaya-1

Chicken Soup for the Soul-1

OctaneTV-1

DivaBoxOfficeTV-1

Full Moon Features-1

Arrow-1

Fandor-1

QVC+-1

TBN-1

Amidst all that content we got some real gems. Not only did I watch more new movies than ever before—in large part because my kids told me they were getting too old for our annual animated special advent calendar (sob)—and once again ranked them in real-time as I did so, but found more I loved than ever before, too.

After 2021 saw zero made-for-TV movies I felt were truly "four paw" worthy, this season saw 3 debuts that I felt strongly enough to include in my all-time favorites list, the most since 2018, and a record 11 movies that I'd give my personal highest 🐾🐾🐾🐾  rating to.

Since I never, ever strived to watch everything new, even when there was a lot less of it, my picks below aren't meant to be the unequivocal best or worst of all that’s out there, just the new holiday fare I managed to sample this season. And even though I watched almost no non-festive content from November 6-December 25 that was still only a drop in the bucket considering the absolute avalanche of Christmas content that now drops annually.

Since I only watch what I hope to enjoy, there's a whole lot of holiday dreck never even considered sampling, as well as plenty of stuff I was interested in that I just never found time for. But of what I did watch in 2022, here's what I liked most, and least this holiday season…

Best Made-for-TV Holiday Movie

With the trips to theater more rare than they were pre-2020, and streaming services having more widely varying budgets than your average cable channel's "movie of the week" model, this category can be a little hard to contain, as it's not really fair to compare even a mid-budget streaming title with shot-in-15-days Hallmark fare, but for my head-to-head comparison purposes this category consists, broadly, of movies with a no more than a 7-figure budget, and shooting schedule of a month or less.

There are definite quality variations within that range—you will for sure notice the budget differences between a $1 million and $6 million production, or 10 versus 25-day shoot—but it at least feels fair to rank those movies against each other, rather than, say, the $100,000,000 estimated production of something like Spirited.

My favorite of the season ended up being not only my first watch of the year, but one that had premiered in 2021 in the U.K.. The Sky original, A Christmas No. 1 (a.k.a. A Christmas Number One), which quietly made its U.S. debut on Tubi in early November. Starring Frieda Pinto and Iwan Rheon, the story of a music exec desperate for a holiday hit, and a musician who doesn't want to sell his song to her cheesy boy band, took turns I wasn't expecting based on that basic premise. Knowing little going in probably helped sell this one for me, as did the high-caliber acting, some genuine laughs, and really good original music. Not without its own well-worn formula, A Christmas No. 1 just felt so much more like a "real movie" than your typical U.S. made-for-TV holiday title, even if they were awkwardly attempting to hide Pinto’s obvious real-life pregnancy.

My second-favorite of the season was also somewhat unexpected.

VH1 entered the holiday movie fray in 2021, with forgettable results in terms of both ratings and quality, not to mention the baffling decision not to stream titles on Viacom-owned Paramount+, so was somewhat surprised to see them putting out more movies in 2022, but they finally made a good one in All I Didn't Want for Christmas, one of the few VH1 holiday titles that didn't rely on existing VH1/MTV talent and/or IP.

Oscar nominee Gabourey Sidibe was fantastic as a woman frustrated with her stagnating life and career who writes Santa a drunken letter, Loretta Devine great as her well-meaning, but overbearing, mom and Kel Mitchell charming as the elf sent to help her. All I Didn’t Want for Christmas was funny, heartfelt and a truly original ride.

Sidibe has fantastic comedic timing and this story offered a rare fresh take on a classic Christmas set-up. A shame that just as they're finding their Christmas movie feet, VH1, which underwent a massive corporate shake-up in early November, is unlikely to produce any further originals. Glad we at least got this gem and hope to see Sidibe in more holiday movies.

No. 3 on my list is Hallmark's big swing, Three Wise Men and a Baby, starring Andrew Walker, Tyler Hynes and Paul Campbell, who also co-wrote the script with Kimberley Sustad.

This was a laugh-out-loud funny comedy that even cleverly carried over Margaret Colin, here playing the adult sons' mom, from its Three Men and a Baby inspiration. Just a joyful holiday watch that both played with the Hallmark formula and reveled in it.

Others worthy of extra mention from Hallmark, Hannukah on Rye, their first truly good Hanukkah romance (to my mind anyway), the almost-great Ghosts of Christmas Always, which I enjoyed very much  as is, but could have been an all-timer with a different ending, and Hallmark's first-ever lead, same-sex holiday romance, The Holiday Sitter.

In just a few years Hallmark has gone from a network whose fare I found ever more bland and uninteresting, to dominating my top 10 of the season list. Every one of which I would, by the way, wholeheartedly recommend to fellow Christmas movie fans.

A Christmas No. 1, Tubi

All I Didn't Want for Christmas, VH1

Three Wise Men and a Baby, Hallmark

Hanukkah on Rye, Hallmark

Haul out the Holly, Hallmark

Ghosts of Christmas Always, Hallmark

Falling for Christmas, Netflix

Reindeer Games Homecoming, Lifetime

Lights, Camera, Christmas!, Hallmark

The Holiday Sitter, Hallmark

Worst Made-for-TV Holiday Movie

It wasn't all accolades for Hallmark. A Holiday Spectacular was reportedly Hallmark's most expensive movie ever, and while it looked relatively lush, filming in the real-life Radio City Music Hall and filled with period cars and costumes, the whitewashing of the Rockettes’ shameful racial history more than just took me out of the story, it ended up making me actively angry.

Hallmark has made so much progress in the past three seasons, to see them running cover for what was once called “one of the most racist organizations in American entertainment,” made me queasy.

Discovery+ started making holiday originals in 2021, and their first effort, Candy-Coated Christmas, was one of my least favorite movies of the year. This year they delivered four originals, and while I had higher hopes given the talent involved, bowed out of two others before (barely) making it through Designing Christmas. A charming cast really couldn't save this very rote, and oddly infomercial-feeling, home design story, that felt like you were watching an extended commercial for other HGTV programming.

As Hallmark rises in my estimation, Lifetime falls. Once a reliable provider of my holiday favorites, Lifetime's last three seasons have been subpar, at best, with this being their worst-ever. Stopped watching so many of their movies this year, eventually just gave up on the network altogether. Only Reindeer Games Homecoming stood out as being worthy of what was once my holiday go-to network. Even their marquee movies with bigger stars no longer provide a reasonable expectation of quality. Didn't make it much past the 15-minute mark for either A Christmas Spark or Santa Bootcamp, despite strong casts, and while I watched all of Steppin' Into the Holiday, couldn't exactly tell you why, since the Mario Lopez-Jana Kramer joint was painfully lifeless and ultimately dumb, as well as boring.

Netflix also had some real clunkers this season, including Christmas with You. I was really looking forward to the streamer giving us a bigger budget, Latino holiday story, but should have known when they changed the name from Christmas Quinceanera to something this boring, the movie would follow suit. Chemistry free, nonsensical story with lifeless performances from usually charming leads. Snooze.

Best Theatrical Holiday Movie

This category could more accurately be called “bigger budget,” as higher-end streaming productions tend to dominate this category now. Though most of my 2022 faves did get a theatrical run, that’s just not where I personally saw them. And, as I said in the made-for-TV category, as streaming originals start to dominate the Christmas movie conversation, the distinction between what is "made-for-TV" and what's "theatrical" can start to feel a bit arbitrary, especially when you're comparing movies that cost $100 million to make, with those that filmed for $10 million, but still far exceed a typical Hallmark or Lifetime movie-of-the-week budget.

In total, I saw 10 holiday movies this year that I think mostly fit into the "theatrical" category, even if only half of them played in theaters. (Being the homebody I am, I saw them all from my sofa.)

Spirited

Violent Night

This is Christmas, Sky/Epix

Your Christmas or Mine?,  Prime Video

Something from Tiffany's, Prime Video

About Fate

Spoiler Alert

Bar Fight, AMC+

A Christmas Story Christmas, HBO Max

The Noel Diary, Netflix

Spirited was not only my favorite of the season, but one of the best modern musicals I've seen. Watched it twice this year, and anticipate it becoming a regular part of my annual Christmas movie rota, as it's already one of my all-time favorites.

The unexpectedly entertaining Violent Night brings together gruesomely cartoonish violence (not usually my thing), humor and Christmas cheer in a completely unique package, despite it cribbing from, and even actually name-checking, so many other holiday classics—altogether an extraordinary and impressive feat. Think David Harbour can now claim the definitive world-weary Santa with a heart of gold portrayal, at least in my book.

British charmers This is Christmas and Your Christmas or Mine? were both sweet, lovely and a true cut above the made-for-TV fare we usually get on this side of the pond.

This is Christmas, like my made-for-TV favorite, A Christmas No. 1, was a Sky TV original in the UK, but it's slightly bigger budget (as a co-production), and same-day U.S. debut, slipped it into the "theatrical" category for me.

Your Christmas or Mine? had a fantastically fun premise—college students in love each decide to jump off their respective trains home to surprise the other for the holidays, only to each be stuck with the other's families instead—that wasn't pulled off quite as well as I'd hoped, but was still lovely and fun, with a great cast.

Also mostly liked About Fate. The New Year's-set remake of Soviet classic, The Irony of Fate, wasn't perfect, but Thomas Mann and Emma Roberts are winning enough to make it work, and I can definitely see myself watching this again in the future.

Even the middling Bar Fight had its moments, thanks mostly to its great, game cast—and that it wasn't a romance (the opposite, as it's a break-up movie) was a refreshing holiday twist.

Worst Theatrical Holiday Movie

So, that leaves my picks for “worst” as the mundane, fan service-laden A Christmas Story Christmas, which made little sense and had far too little of the humor and heartfelt moments that has made the original a lasting classic.

But even worse than that mostly dull sequel was The Noel Diary, which has convinced me that Richard Paul Evans isn't just the Nicolas Sparks of Christmas movies, they might be one in the hacky same. Poorly edited, woodenly acted, and a plot so dumb it made me want to throw things at the screen. Not quite bad enough to be "fun bad," but very bad indeed.

Best Stealth Christmas Movie

Bily Eichner’s big screen, R-rated rom-com Bros was my favorite rom-com of the year, and it's pivotal Christmas scenes, plus constant name-checking of "Hallheart" movies, makes it a stealth Christmas movie.

If you’re unfamiliar with the genre, that’s what I call a movie set during the Christmas season, or containing key holiday scenes, that isn’t specifically thought of as a Christmas film.

The holiday heavy Spoiler Alert, and more lightly holiday The Good House, which has significant Thanksgiving and Christmas scenes, are also well worth a watch.

Worst Stealth Christmas Movie

I must pick The King's Man. Yes, it came out in late 2021, but I watched it in 2022, and this franchise spin off is awful enough for its Christmas-scented stench to pollute two years. Even the lesser-than Kingsman sequel looks like a masterpiece next to this dreck.

Best Animated Holiday Special

Apple is doing a fantastic job preserving Charlie Brown’s legacy, and this year's new holiday shorts collection Happiness is a Gift Worth Giving, part of season 2 of The Snoopy Show, are absolutely in line with the heart and soul of the original Peanuts specials.

Honorable mention to the Autumn of Mickey Mouse, the latest in Disney's series of retro-look, seasonal specials that, like The Snoopy Show, really hew to the original ethos of the characters and all are smart, funny and sweet.

In case anyone wants to be a stickler and not count either of the above for being, respectively, not-Christmas centered, or part of an animated series, CBS gave us the amiable Reindeer in Here which was an original story with a good message, that I can see being added to many family’s annual rotations. Far from groundbreaking, it was still a pleasant, festive watch.

Worst Animated Holiday Special

Cannot say the same for the much more popular, Mickey Saves Christmas, which ran on ABC and striped across the Disney Channels and is now on Disney+. The story is almost non-existent, and even the animation seemed sub-par, a mix between low-budget computer generation and stop-motion.

Little kids liked it enough to make it pop in the ratings even after endless repeat airings, so I'm sure we'll see it again and again forever, but Disney knows how to do this so much better, and it feels like they just didn't bother here.

Best Live Action Holiday Special

We go from something Disney did poorly, to something they did quite well, the Marvel one-off Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special. This James Gunn-written and produced mini-movie was so much fun, and even gave us two great new original songs for the holiday canon.

Did Chris Pratt frequently look like he’d rather be anywhere else? Sure, but Mantis and Drax’s capture of a very game Kevin Bacon more than made up for Pratt’s pout.

Honorable mentions here to Who Killed Santa? A Murderville Murder Mystery. The improvised offshoot of Will Arnett’s Netflix series paired the comedian with his Smartless podcast partners Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes, as well as Maya Rudolph.

It's very silly, often veering into stupid, but I laughed a lot. Would probably have liked it even more if not for the third act Pete Davidson appearance. Luckily, Davidson did very little. Per usual.

Also enjoyed Showtime’s tongue-in-cheek Matt Rogers: Have You Heard of Christmas? This parody of an old-fashioned musical holiday special, featured Rogers singing hits from his fictional holiday album. A good enough singer to make the comedy songs work, Rogers has impeccable timing and style, and between this special and Fire Island, as well as his hit podcast Las Culturistas, had one heck of a 2022.

Worst Live Action Holiday Special

Disney’s streaming original Best in Snow was a weird combination of competition and storyline. While this could have been interesting as strictly a snow building competition, Titus Burgess' commitment to his weird “mayor” character, a handful of seemingly unrelated animated segments, and truly bizarre pacing made this a mish-mash that simply did not work.

Best Holiday Series

The past few seasons have left us spoiled for choice when it comes to holiday series. This season saw a dearth of new, specifically holiday-set series to explore—with the caveat that I never quite found time for Per-Olav Sørensen's Storm for Christmas on Netflix—but season two of Starstruck, the lovely British rom-com on HBO Max, both incorporated the holidays and was one of my favorite watches of the year.

Worst Holiday Series

The Disney+ series sequel to the The Santa Clause movie trilogy, The Santa Clauses, was unfunny, unfestive and absolutely unnecessary. This tired Tim Allen vehicle filled with “jokes” sourced straight from Fox News held no appeal, even though I slogged through two episodes hoping it would get better.

The Santa Clauses has already been renewed for season, so clearly people are watching, but to say this isn’t my cup of cocoa is putting it lightly, so to feel free to pencil season two in as my worst of 2023 already.

Best Holiday Reality Series

FOX’s Lego Masters: Celebrity Holiday Bricktacular paired past LEGO Masters players with celebs competing for charity for a fun family watch that, at just four episodes over three nights (two regular episodes, and a double-length finale), didn’t have time to wear out its welcome.

And, though it wasn't as prominent a tribute as I'd hoped and expected, it was also still very nice to see Leslie Jordan being his hilarious, amazing, and charming self, one last time, following his untimely October death.

Worst Holiday Reality Series

Silos Baking Competition: Holiday Edition, on HBO Max, is the latest entry in the constant self-promotional churn of the insufferable Chip and Joanna Gaines, who I don’t recall hating before they turned themselves into a 24/7 brand. This dull as dishwater "competition" was a basic retread of better baking shows and barely even qualified as Christmas-y, despite the title.

Best Holiday TV Episode of an Ongoing Series

Abbott Elementary is the best show on traditional broadcast TV, and their “Holiday Hookah” episode delivered a sweet, holiday tale that also pushed forward major ongoing plot points, like the will they/won't they flirtation between Quinta Brunson and Tyler James Williams, with Janelle James predictably stealing the show.

Worst Holiday TV Episode of an Ongoing Series

Animation voice work is clearly a sweet celebrity gig, so I don't blame folks like Lisa Kudrow, Clea DeVall and Nat Faxon for cashing the checks, but both new Housebroken holiday episodes on FOX, my first brush with the series, left me seriously underwhelmed. Lots of poop "humor" and exceedingly little heart, even in what should be the most sentimental effort(s) of the season. Sad that so many talented people are making something so uninspired.

Felt like there were fewer holiday series episodes in general than in year’s past, probably in part due to smaller season orders leaving less time for holiday hijinks.

Best Christmas Advert

Watching these bite-size servings of holiday joy has long been a part of our family’s Christmas tradition. We now have a fairly well established list that we revisit annually, just like any other beloved Christmas special. Though there were plenty of note, overall 2022 seemed like a lesser year for the corporate Christmas mini-movie, though there was at least one that made me sob like a baby…“El Ruso de Rocky,” from Spanish company J&B, shows a grandfather modeling acceptance in the most selfless, nurturing way possible.

Honorable mention to Kroger’s Up inspired “The Magical Cookbook,” which poignantly captured the connection between holiday meals and memories.

Worst Christmas Advert

Old Navy’s endless variations on their hyperkinetic “Matchy Matchy” ads were a true waste of the great Jennifer Coolidge. But good for her for getting that holiday green, though.

Best New Christmas Song

2022 wasn’t quite as quite as strong a year for new holiday tunes as 2021, but I still found plenty to add to my ever-growing "Christmas Favorites" playlist.

“Night Before Christmas,” Sam Smith

“Here it is Christmastime,” Kevin Bacon and the Old 97′s

“The More You Give (The More You’ll Have),” Michael Buble (Listen, the man has an endless well of holiday originals inside of him, and will release one annually till the earth's core melts)

“I Don’t Know What Christmas Is (But Christmastime Is Here),” the Old 97′s

“Almost Too Early for Christmas,” Dolly Parton and Jimmy Fallon (Is it unbearably cheesy? Sure. But, c’mon, it’s Dolly)

“12 nights,” Sia

“Snow in L.A.,” Noah Cyrus and PJ Harding

“So Much Wine,” Phoebe Bridgers

"This is Christmas,” Annelise Cepero (Didn’t see Holiday Harmony, but the song ended up in my playlist anyway.)

“Naughty and Nice,” Sia

With an honorable mention to the new-to-me music from A Christmas No. 1, especially “Christmas Morning,” in both its Iwan Rheon acoustic and Scurve versions, which were probably the tunes I actually listened to most this season.

Worst New Christmas Song

Jeff Goldblum’s “The Christmas Waltz” felt like a parody where he wasn’t in on the joke, unlike his much better, actual parody holiday gig.

Best New Christmas Album

Spirited was the soundtrack I just couldn’t stop humming. Hard to pick just one standout, but did I dance around singing "That Christmas Morning Feelin'" into a candy cane on December 25th to the embarrassment of my family? 100%. And I regret nothing.

Worst New Christmas Album

Alicia Keys’ Santa Baby, while not terrible by any means, was a disappointment. I expected a standout from someone with as powerful a presence as Keys. The original, "December Back 2 June," was meh, and the standards didn't really stick either. A very ho-hum effort from a singer who is usually anything but.

Best Holiday Book

Lindsay Kelk’s cozy and romantic The Christmas Wish was my favorite holiday read of 2022. Sweet with just enough edge to make this Groundhog Day take interesting. (And, yes, my 2021 favorite read was another stuck-in-a-Christmas-time-loop tale, Holidazed, so guess I have a type.)

Best Holiday Podcast

Going to sound like a bit of a broken record here, because while the hosts changed, my holiday favorite podcast did not. Deck the Hallmark continues to be my holiday listening go-to, maybe because they put out so much content I don’t have time to try and tackle anything else 😝

Of course, always make time for the ladies of All the Feels and their holiday movie bracket, as well as Alonso Duralde’s “Christmas Movie Minute” on Maximum Film.

Favorite New-to-Me Holiday Content

With so much new this season, didn’t get to sample too much I’d missed from the past, but Hallmark’s 2020 Project Christmas Wish, starring Amanda Schull and Travis Van Winkle, was one of the more actually romantic Hallmark romances of recent years. We got to see the characters fall in love, rather than just go from "hating" each other to "being in love" in an instant. Just a well-done entry in the genre I’m happy to have caught up with.

Top 10 Non-Holiday Movies of 2022

Glass Onion, A Knives Out Story, Netflix

Good Luck to You, Leo Grande, Hulu

Hustle, Netflix

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent

Bros

The Sea Beast, Netflix

Top Gun: Maverick

Confess, Fletch

The Valet, Hulu

The Good House

Though there are plenty of awards contenders still haven’t managed to see, making this list subject to future amendment, Rian Johnson’s return to the world of Benoit Blanc was smart, funny and a whole lot of fun to watch.

Top 15 Non-Holiday TV Series of 2022

Trying, Apple TV+

Hacks, HBO Max

Derry Girls, Netflix

Starstruck, HBO Max

Peacemaker, HBO Max

Heartstopper, Netflix

Reservation Dogs, Hulu

From Scratch, Netflix

Barry, HBO Max

Julia, HBO Max

The Crown, Netflix

This is Going to Hurt, AMC+

Reboot, Hulu

Single Drunk Female, FX

Abbott Elementary, ABC

As with movies, there are a long list of series I still need to catch up on, but even with those viewing blind spots, could easily have made a list twice this long with shows I really loved (for instance, ran out of room for things like my beloved Never Have I Ever, and very good The Best Man: The Final Chapters), but no show made me laugh, or cry, more regularly in 2022 than Apple’s absolutely brilliant Trying. By the way, Trying’s regular director, Jim O'Hanlon, also made Your Christmas or Mine?

Worst Non-Holiday Movie/TV of 2022

No movie I watched all the way through in 2022 stunk worse than Netflix’s execrable Purple Hearts. The reason I kept watching is because I mistook it for the kind of cheesy, sentimental military romance I usually kind of enjoy, instead of the just plain awful, poorly acted and seriously stupid story it actually was. Literally laughed out loud at the ending. If it was slightly less polished, this one almost tips over into The Room-like cringe that could make it almost fun, but, alas.

In bad TV, Hillary Swank’s achingly earnest Alaska Daily, with its bonkers depiction of journalism-ing and overwhelming white savior narrative, made my eyes roll so often I thought I might have sprained something.

Favorite Advent Calendar

Those who follow me on Twitter, know I have a slight advent calendar obsession, particularly beauty advent calendars, so now that I’ve opened my [redacted number] of 2022 calendars, thought I’d share my favorite of the season…The 12 Days of Harrod’s Fragrance calendar contained several bottles that were each worth more than the calendar’s cost. No tiny samples here, all purse size or larger, truly high-end scents to more than sample, simply but beautifully packaged.

Honorable mention to my favorite beauty calendars, which included the companion 25 Days of Harrod’s Beauty and Liberty London, both of which featured a lot of seriously high-end skincare products, many of them full size.

And while I’m not sure I would want to monetize my Christmas movie musings, even if I could, I am open to anyone who wants to send me luxury beauty advent calendars to review in 2023 😜

Best Holiday Network

Hallmark Channel has gone from my worst to first in just three years. Their new Peacock ad-free availability meant I watched more of their movies than ever before, and they were mostly quite good.

Hallmark's newfound diversity, forged under new leadership, not only in casting, but storytelling too, means that the 43 movies they made this year actually have distinct differences from one another, instead of identical copies of the same story retold every weekend of the season. It's a breath of a fresh air and, honestly, given the quality and quantity of the content, paired with increased streaming availability, there's probably never been a better time to be a Hallmark Christmas movie fan.

Worst Holiday Network

Great American Family spent most of the year not making movies—broadcasting from early February to the end of August with zero new or original content—instead opting to fiddle with their name, after realizing the acronym GAC sounded like a cat trying to get up a hairball, only to change it to GAF, which sounds like either a mistake (gaffe), or R-rated shorthand (as in IDGAF) that doesn’t seem in line with the network’s stated "faith, family and country” theme.

But naming confusion was just the tip of the iceberg for Great American Family’s issues, many of which were unforced errors, like CEO Bill Abbott calling convicted felon Lori Loughlin, "Someone who has a track record of doing the right thing in the world at large." and “America’s Sweetheart.”

To pulling one of their holiday movies just days after announcing it, saying it didn’t “meet their standards.” Or endlessly changing their Christmas schedule, which they claimed contained “18 originals,” but actually featured movies that had debuted years ago they renamed and passed off as new, as well as several that dropped on free streaming services before coming to GAF.

But GAF’s biggest, well, gaffe of the year came when Candace Cameron Bure accidentally said the quiet part out loud to the Wall Street Journal, and admitted Great American Family’s main mission was pretending queer people don’t exist—at least not in front of the camera. Of course, when everyone acted properly horrified by her hate speech, Cameron Bure blamed “the media” even though she’d been perfectly happy to repeatedly promote the WSJ story on her own social media…Right up until she realized it wasn't going well for her online.

The good news is that Great American Family’s ratings remain absolutely dismal. The network finished 103rd out of 159 Nielsen-tracked TV networks, averaging a meagre 79,000 viewers, behind every single other Christmas movie-making network. GAF’s so-called “signature franchise” Christmas movies averaged less than 225,000 viewers and a paltry .02 (that’s point 2) in the all-important 18-49 demographic. Their highest-rated movie to date, Christmas at the Drive-In, only managed 482,000 viewers and a .04 in the demo. Just all around disastrous ratings for an ad-based network that doesn’t even have On Demand or streaming options to boost their viewership.

Of course, rock bottom ratings didn’t keep Great American Family from rolling out a “Mission Accomplished” press release that, at best, fudged the stats.

With just 7% of Hallmark’s average viewership, it’s long past time for reporters to stop credulously reporting that GAF is Hallmark’s Christmas “competition.” And shout out to Decider’s Brett White for making that point with a lot of math.

Anyway, yeah, Bill Abbott, marketing genius.

Worst Holiday TV Trend

TOO MUCH! For real this time.

Since I felt the holiday movie pace was unsustainable at least 100 movies per year ago, won't make any predictions, but does seem hard to imagine how this exponential annual increase can keep going. As cable audiences dwindle, and streamers tighten their belts, we must, sooner or later, see the holiday movie machine contract.

Yes, these movies’ annual rewatchablity, relative low cost, and ad-placement-friendly subject matter is a big part of what made them so popular, and profitable, but at some point, we'll simply run out of places to put them all, not to mention more movies fighting for fewer eyeballs in an increasingly smaller marketplace.

Well, that’s a wrap on 2022!

As for me, since I've talked about abandoning this hobby turned unpaid part-time job for several seasons now, won't make any predications there either, but do know that while I'm still interested in the inner workings of the industry, as well as still personally enjoy watching Christmas content, trying to follow the now non-stop production is way, way too much for me to promise to keep up with. For updates and info you can visit me on Twitter at @sleepykittypaw if you wish, at least as long as that platform is around/usable.

But, no matter what 2023 brings, cheers to you and yours in the New Year, and know that next year’s holiday movies are already just around the corner.

[mariacallous]

I worry about the state of media, namely movies are dying with streaming and HD TVs people can get a home media experience thats equal to what they can get in theaters for most films. I mean for Horror, thrillers, Drama, or comedy it's hard to say that watching in your own home at a time of your choosing isn't the better more immersive experience.

so that leaves only blockbuster movies, mostly Superhero films as movies you can reasonable expect people to go sit in a theater to see

with fewer and fewer movies being able to make money in theaters more and more eggs are going into mega blockbusters and Disney has realized that it can cut corners and squeeze money out of their movies by over counting on CGI and cheaping out on it too so it looks like shit these days.

it's infecting everyone, I mean LotR did SO much real hard effects, famously, and then 10 years latter poor Ian McKellen has a break down crying because he's acting in the Hobbit in a green void because they refused to build a Hobbit living room....

Any ways this wouldn't be so much of a problem, 5 years ago I thought all the energy would move onto TV and streaming, with a golden age of prestige TV, and made for Netflix films pushing into Oscar zone. But everyone has a streaming service now, Disney is acting like Walmart using their Marvel mega brand to back often subpar shows and pull in people (and the kid angle) HBOMax has decided to kill itself, Netflix is struggling to keep up with these mega companies.

with Disney pumping out even cheeper versions of their Marvel movies as TV shows, and HBOMax and Amazon both cutting corners like crazy to push out an epic fantasy show I worry thats the future cheap cheap looking looking shows trying to sell "epic" at the expense of story and mood and there will be literally no where for stories

I think, like a lot of cryptocurrency, that this current trend is unsustainable and a tipping point will be reached.

I also think more people will just get tired of it. What kills me, to a certain extent, is how many people feel obligated? to watch or consume all of these?

I also think if we have copyright reforms and competition enforcement, that would help the situation.

I also think that you'll start to see actors and others just refuse to participate or work in those conditions? Like there's only so much and so far they can go or put up with.

[dizzymoods]

I need you to go into more detail on your take on this vertical monopolization of the theater industry. From my layperson's perspective it looks like it's going to screw a bunch of potential up and coming, soon to be rich and famous people and I couldn't care less. But I want to know how this is going to affect say a career gaffer or something like that. How will this affect people for whom making movies is a much needed job job.

my major point for that post was that a telecomms company like ATT (which owns HBOMAX & WB) has a vested interest in driving consumers to use their telecomms technonlogy and to discourage them from going to other avenues (theaters). And how the biggest media conglomerate in the world, Disney, just announced that much of their future slate will be available on their streaming service day and date. They tested the waters with charging $30 for Mulan earlier this year (even though i think it’s free for D+ users now?). So, I’m not necessarily talking about vertical integration of theaters so much as how this very sudden pivot to streaming/tech, understandably exacerbated by the effects of the pandemic, is shortsighted and a guise for these media conglomerates to abuse workers. I was framing my post from the perspective of an independent director to kind of vent my frustrations as I seek funding for my next movie. and how this news is going to affect the financing of independent american films. And which kind of films get greenlight, accepted to festivals,  and picked up for distribution etc. A friend of mine was in talks with an indie producer to make their film this year (obviously didn’t happen) and now that productions are happening again the producer gave notes last week for them to restructure scenes/runtime that might make it more appealing to amazon/netflix. This is an indication of the flattening of artistic expression in american cinema. The kind of sameness of a lot of recent movies from these streaming giants and the boutique companies like Annapurna or a24. This trickles into representation as only certain forms of blackness or femininity or queerness or disability are useful to the algorithms (ex. Black Death). Which is why I said this is a blow to the quality of all american cinema.

I’m also thinking of  an increase in situations like w Garret Bradley’s Time which is a phenomenal look into how america’s prison system affects families but is distributed by Amazon Studios, whose parent company is invested in the carceral technologies that lead to the very same fracturing of families the film highlights. But also we are talking about film/media conglomerates so we should also not just be thinking of on set workers like gaffers but also interns, office PAs, assistants, secretaries, etc. My friend was just laid off from Disney. She was a middle manager’s assistant. Pre-pandemic the company was doing bs like not honoring OT, coercing her to do stuff that isn’t her responsibility and reprimanding her if she failed such tasks. With the first wave of layoffs her workload got much more demanding and with the pandemic it became more difficult too as she worked from home with restricted access to their programs (for cybersecurity reasons). These kind of restructuring layoffs put more stress on the people who remain at the company as they are coerced to take on the workload of those who were terminated.

I have another friend who edits video content for ViacomCBS. The merger and subsequent re-launch (re-introduction?) of CBS All Access increased their workload in preparation for that (and now even more as they rebrand it to Paramount+) in addition to the increased demand from the company to push out more online content bc of the pandemic despite laying off over half the team during last years’ merger.

This article from THR details how bad the Disney layoffs have been recently as they restructure to be more stream heavy. Additionally, a lot of these older media congolmerates are taking note from netflix, which has notoriously bad working conditions.

Where I work, our gaffers are being reduced to grips (less pay) and many are working multiple sets (which overworks them and provides less opportunities for other workers) as we invest in digital lighting technologies and post work. There’s talk that next year that we’ll merge our digitechs & retouchers into one job and downsize the numbers in both depts. My parent company has also invested into AR which will eventually make my team (ecomm) obsolete.

Our freelance stylists talk all the time about being replaced by digitechs in fashion who can just digitally add a watch or shoe or dress to a model.

Unreal Engine’s Project Spotlight can mean a future with less G&E, set builders, people in props department, etc. This isn’t necessarily going to happen overnight but look at how quickly and how many film developers and projectionists etc lost their jobs due to digital filmmaking.

There’s a lot going on in media production right now and the pivot to streaming animates anxieties in all these ways (and more). This is to say nothing about the many, many people who will lose their jobs as these tech companies try to make theaters obsolete (ticket checkers, concessions, projectionists, custodial staff, etc)

[burnouts3s3]

A Long Post about Disney Plus

(Disclaimer: The following is a non-profit unprofessional blog post written by an unprofessional blog poster. All purported facts and statement are little more than the subjective, biased opinion of said blog poster. In other words, don’t take anything I say too seriously.)

A Long Post about Disney Plus

UPDATE: Movies such as Dumbo and The Lady and the Tramp have not been altered from their original content but instead include a disclaimer stating the movie may contain "outdated cultural depictions". Toy Story 2 still does not have the Stinky Pete scene. The episode "Stark Raving Dad" of the Simpsons is NOT on the platform.

So, the almighty Disney Corporation, aka, that giant conglomerate that has bought Marvel Studios, 20th Century Fox and Star Wars, is planning to release Disney Plus, a streaming service that has multiple shows, movies and original content under the Disney Banner.

And frankly, I’m a bit… worried.

Let me start off by saying, I’m not here to criticize you, the reader and potential consumer. However you want to spend your money is your business. If you wish to boycott Disney out of some personal philosophy or ideology or whatever reason, that’s your business. I’m not here to dictate how you spend your cash.

I would, however, like offer a humble suggestion before you decide to dive in head first into a potentially disastrous scenario.

So, Disney Plus is a streaming service that promises to provide lots of content to potential subscribers and let them view whatever content for a subscription. Obviously, this is Disney’s response and plan to combat other streaming services such as Netflix, HBOMax, Apple TV Plus and so on and so forth. While Streaming services aren’t nothing new, the addition of the Disney brand as well as the multiple Intellectual Properties under its umbrella.

What worries me is where both Disney and its potential customers go from here.

There’s already early reports of certain franchises being put “behind the Disney Vault” aka “We’re not rereleasing these films”. For example, the Aliens Franchise is apparently being one of those films.

www.alien-covenant.com/news/di…

However, Alien and other Fox properties will still be locked away in an effort to combat independent theaters and chains from profiting by screening those classic films.

Other reports indicate that certain films will be censored or excluded from the platform entirely. For example, the Siamese Cats from “The Lady and the Tramp” or Jim Crow from Dumbo will be cut out of their respective films entirely (and would explain why Disney is so keen on doing a live action remake of the Lady and the Tramp). Another case would be a Toy Story 2 after credits scene where in Stinky Pete is flirting with some Barbie Dolls and promising them parts for Toy Story 3.

boundingintocomics.com/2019/11…

CNBC also reports that Disney will remove its Jim Crow character from Dumbo. “The Jim Crow character from the original “Dumbo” will be edited out of the film version that appears on the streaming service.” This also isn’t new news. Boardwalk Times noted the scene would be changed back in April. They reported at the time: “The Jim Crow scene in 1941’s Dumbo will also be edited out for the digital library that launches November 12.” The scene was also removed for the recent live-action Dumbo remake from director Tim Burton as well. CNBC also reports a post-credit scene from Toy Story 2 featuring Stinky Pete will also be removed from the film on Disney+. The scene sees Stinky Pete appearing to seduce two Barbie dolls and promises he can get them roles in Toy Story 3.

Obviously, this is all legal. Disney owns the rights to the properties and they want to have a clean 21st Progressive Identity to hide behind. Besides, I suspected that “Song of the South” was never going to be on the platform.

But this is part of the same problem that everyone, even the most vocal Anti-Disney people, seem to be overlooking.

In which we, the consumer, are trading a product in favor of a service.

What I mean is that because of the success of things like Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc., too many of us have gotten used to the idea that we need to pay a subscription for digital access instead of paying a flat rate for a product. That’s NOT a good sign.

The debate of whether exclusive content such as the Original Series, The Mandalorian, is worth the price of admission or whether streaming services are necessary in the age of digital piracy are one thing, but in the age of dubious ownership and the doing away of physical content, ownership still matters.

It all goes back to one thing; when you subscribe to a service to access your content, the people you pay have the right to revoke your service and keep your money. That’s not a good thing regardless of political ideology. And while it’s tempting for PC gamers to pay for what amounts to a digital license to be onboard the same ship, the fact is having all that content tied to one account risks the danger of losing all that data if you should lose access to your account.

I’m a firm believer of owning physical media. For example, I own a Blu Ray of Assassination Classroom. No matter what I say or do online, I don’t have to be afraid of Chris Sabat kicking down my door and taking my Blu-ray away from me (or, at least, I shouldn’t have to…). Because when I buy a physical product, it’s mine as long as I don’t lose it or it isn’t damaged.

But a subscription (and to a lesser extent, a digital license) can be lost really easily.  Even if I were to take extra good care of my account and prevent people from hacking it, guess what? The people who make the content can revoke access.

Remember Minecraft: The Telltale Series? Interesting story. See, when Telltale when bankrupt, one of the games they had made, Minecraft, would no longer be accessible or downloadable from digital platforms, even to those who held the license.

Can you imagine what kind terrifying precedent that sets? Keep a movie or show permanently downloaded onto your storage or lose access to it forever? We’re dealing with a system that makes it so that you don’t own the stuff you paid for now!  

Owning a product gives me a plethora of options. It allows me to keep it, re-watch it, lend it to someone else or, if I decide to hock it for drinking money, sell it. It’s not perfect, but it’s preferable to having something that I paid for as opposed to having nothing. My loyalty to whatever company makes said product ends with a transaction (a transaction that can be easily outmaneuvered through a 3rd party purchase or sale). With a service, you can’t help but be loyal to said company.

If I start badmouthing Disney and Disney decides to deny me access to my subscription, my account or my digital licenses, guess what? I’m up a particularly smelly creek without a paddle.

I doubt Disney will go that far and will adopt a similar strategy to Funimation, as in they give digital vouchers for their Blu-ray series but it’s only redeemable on Disney Plus the same way digital vouchers from Funimation Blu-rays are only redeemable on its streaming service, FunimationNow. I also understand the economic argument in which lots of lower income families cannot afford specific shows and just want a plethora of options. But I know a step in the wrong direction when I see one and with stuff like Kevin Feige saying true Marvel fans must subscribe to said service or Disney saying Disney Plus subscribers will have early access to Frozen 2 or Captain Marvel, the case is there.

This is what happened to things like Dumbo and Lady and the Tramp and Toy Story 2. When you don’t own a physical content of your media, you’re at the whims of a corporation that can alter it whenever they want. 

We all have different opinions when it comes to taste or entertainment. But whatever your feelings on the Disney corporation, whether you think of Kathleen Kennedy’s leadership of the Star Wars franchise, whether you thought the Last Jedi was a piece of junk, whatever you feel about Disney’s relationship with China, one thing is certain. 

When you buy a product, you own that product. When you buy a service, the service owns you.

[nerdfighterwhatevernumbers]

i watched a review of hbomax and the person was like ‘yeah it’s only a couple bucks more than netflix so if you’re more than a casual viewer it’s totally worth it’ and that brings up the general problem i have with these things

like first off it’s only a couple bucks more than netflix if you have the $12.99 package not the more basic 9.99 netflix, and secondly it’s only a couple bucks more IF YOU GET RID OF YOUR NETFLIX. Otherwise you’re more than doubling your entertainment bill

You can’t phrase it as if it’s ‘only’ this much more than Netflix without taking into account people will still have Netflix unless you actually endorse that it’s worth getting rid of Netflix. Netflix has way more accessibility and original shows and movies than hbomax, it’s not going to be worth getting rid of for most people, so no, it’s not actually ‘only’ a few bucks more every month because most won’t get rid of their netflix and it will just become a second bill 

this is also what’s been bugging me about fans obsessed with supporting a show ‘the right way’ because they ignore how much money that actually takes to do for every show. take infinity train- if you wanted to support it the first time around, as far as i remember, it was never on hulu, so you needed to have a cable package for CN to watch and support the first two seasons. Now that it’s on HBOmax it’s all your fault if the show doesn’t get renewed if you can’t do this whole new app on TOP of the old cable package you were supposed to be supporting the show with before. Unless they literally want you to get rid of your cable package for a new service the second one of your shows changes platforms, they are asking you to pay more and more for one show and you are personally to blame if that’s too much money.

Add another show to that- let’s say Amphibia. Of course you’re supposed to have disney+ and watch the first season on Disney+ since it’s not on the Disney Now app that comes with a cable subscription and now that’s only an extra $7 per month so that is a better price than adding $15 to your bill with HBOmax, so it’s not unreasonable to have Netflix and a $7 Disney+ account for this show, right? 

Except Amphibia is on its second season and if you don’t watch it live as it airs well you’re also killing the show, it is entirely on you if this gets cancelled because you aren’t watching it as it airs on cable, even though Disney+ does not have new episodes on its app and you HAVE to have cable to watch currently airing seasons legally.

See, the problem with this is extremist fans will then blame you for not making the time to watch things live and also not paying for cable on top of the streaming app, and if I want infinity train and amphibia, well then it’s my ‘responsibility’ to have a cable package, disney+, AND HBOmax so the show doesn’t get cancelled. That’s either on top of Netflix, or it’ll be my responsibility to get rid of Netflix, which only asks that i watch She Ra in one place under one app, the end. 

And of course I don’t actually pay for all these things, I have different people’s logins for different apps and while I’d pay for netflix or maybe hulu if I lost those logins (because watching them on the tv is more convenient than pirating on my laptop and Netflix has subtitles and audio describe), I just wouldn’t watch disney+ if I had to pay for it myself. Hence, why I don’t watch HBOmax

But of course, people talking about these apps and if they’re worth it and hardcore fans asking you to watch the show in all its forms on paid platforms are not going to advocate for password sharing because that’s not supporting the show ‘the right way’ or it’s ‘stealing’ as if lending your friend a dvd is ‘stealing’ because they didn’t buy one themself

Also, because Disney+ just straight up doesn’t have the first episode of Darkwing Duck, any American Dragon, or any Filmore for no apparent reason, I don’t even have the options to watch those legally. The fans of these shows care less about pirating these because they’re already cancelled, but Disney Fans TM suuuuper care about Disney not getting every last cent of money they can.

It’s just obnoxious when people point to shows hosted on multiple platforms or streaming services that intentionally divide up what is and isn’t on their app (disney keeping things in their vault or only having ongoing content in one app and HBOmax only having ‘some’ DC content so people also have to pay for their DC streaming service) and act like you’re killing a show by not paying as much money as possible. And paying as much money as possible is exactly why these services are built this way

[jmsa1287]

Apple TV+'s 'The Morning Show' is Mad as Hell but Will Anyone Watch?

Apple’s foray into streaming TV is upon us and its flagship series “The Morning Show” is...fine.

With the launch of Apple TV+, the new streaming service from the biggest tech company in the world, on Nov. 1 it officially marks the beginning of the so-called "Streaming Wars." The intangible battle has been a looming threat for the last few years — ever since Apple and Disney both announced they'd be going head-to-head with already well-established streamers like Netflix and Amazon. (The Mouse House's Disney+ will launch on Nov. 12 and we'll get a handful of new steamers next year, including HBOMax, Peacock and Quibi.)

Apple and Disney have different strategies when it comes to the rollout of their over the top services. With its impressive ownership of some of the biggest intellectual property in the world, Disney will launch with a "Star Wars" spinoff show called "The Mandalorian," along with a "High School: The Musical" series, but more notably, the company revealed in an epic Twitter thread just all the content that will be available on Disney+, ranging from the obscure ("Smart House") to its most beloved films ("Beauty and the Beast," "Avengers").

Apple doesn't have a content library as deep as Disney, so it's setting sail with a number of brand-new shows in hopes it will be enough to get people to sign up for its $4.99 monthly service. And Apple TV+'s biggest bet is "The Morning Show," a star-studded adult drama about a morning news program in the throes of the #MeToo Movement. It's very topical and features some of the biggest celebrities in TV history, including Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon reuniting from playing sisters on "Friends" as well as Steve Carell, marking his first major TV role since "The Office."

It'll be determined whether or not the trio of A-listers will be enough for casual TV watchers and the more diehards to fork over the nearly $60 a year for Apple TV+ -- folks who are likely already shelling out good money for Netflix, Amazon, a music streaming service, and the number of other streamers out there like Hulu (which Disney has full control of), The Criterion Channel, HBO Now, and Shudder. (Not to mention many people pay for cable on top of that.) It's likely early reviews of "The Morning Show" will play a significant role in getting people to sign up or skip adding another streaming service to their diet.

"The Morning Show" is fine. It's not a disaster that its odd trailers would have you believe. Loosely based on journalist Brain Stelter's book "Top of the Morning: Inside the Cutthroat Worlds of Morning TV," the new drama is that adult middlebrow fare that has a little too much swearing for network TV, has a higher budget ($15 million an episode!) and looks sleeker but... untimely feels like it would air on CBS primetime in 1995. Maybe not a bad thing for some! Both Aniston and Witherspoon give great performances, playing veteran "Morning Show" anchor Alex Levy and a non-nonsense conservative reporter from a local news station down South, Bradley Jackson respectively. In a supporting role, Carell plays Mitch Kessler, Alex's longtime "Morning Show" cohost who is outed in the first minutes of the show's pilot, directed by TV vet Mimi Leder, as the latest celeb to be accused of sexual misconduct.

Indeed, the confident pilot is the best of the three episodes Apple provided. Alex wakes up to learn The New York Times published an article about the allegations against Mitch, who she calls her "on-air husband," at 3:30 a.m., learning with the rest of the world about this TV's dad's transgressions. Reacting to the leaked story, Alex has to quickly prep for the show, figuring out how to react on live TV and what to say getting guidance from her producer Chip (Mark Duplass) and the newly appointed network president Cory (a great Billy Crudup). Later on in the episode, Bradley finds herself going mega-viral for having a "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" moment when a protest she's covering gets out of hand.

Almost everyone on "The Morning Show" is mad as hell. Alex can't stop crying and lashing out from the revelation about Mitch, which is causing her professional and personal lives to be turned upside down. Bradley is sick and tired of trying to do good journalism while constantly bumping up against the patriarchy and people's lack of interest in hard news. Chip's head is constantly spinning while trying to manage the Mitch controversy and finding his replacement along with constantly reeling in Alex. Cory, who is sly but seems the calmest and optimistic about the situation, is feeling the heat from the network execs to get "The Morning Show" on the right path. Mitch is mad at the whole damn world for being a "victim" of what he calls the second wave of Me Too Movement. This is where "The Morning Show" gets a bit dicey. It doesn't hesitate to show you Mitch's side of the story ("I didn't rape anyone!" he yells more than once). He admits to having affairs albeit consensual, unwilling to understand the power he has in that kind of relationship. There's also a scene in which Mitch gets to have an odd positive moment when he's discussing his allegations with a sketch filmmaker, played here by Martin Short, who admits to being a predator.

"The Morning Show" has a lot on its mind but thankfully it doesn't take itself too seriously and has a necessary undercurrent of comedy that pops up in the right places. It feels like the right time for a splashy drama to take on real-life headlines about prominent men facing consequences for their inappropriate actions (in this case viewers won't be able to stop thinking of Matt Lauer and his exit from "Today"). And there really hasn't been a good TV show about the newsroom in recent years; Aaron Sorkin's HBO drama "The Newsroom" was the biggest kind of a disaster. The short-lived NBC comedy "Great News," starring Andrea Martin, didn't have the bite to take off and was more focused on a 'will-they-won't-they' relationship. It's a bit crumby that "The Morning Show" has the added pressure of being Apple TV+'s flagship series. If it debuted on Netflix this week, it would probably get the kinds of reviews Netflix shows usually get — mixed-to-positive. There's an exciting energy to the first three episodes but it suffers from the feeling that the showrunner, Kerry Ehrin, who took over the drama after it was developed, was desperate to fill up each hour (and in some cases, over an hour) each episode. "The Morning Show" suffers from a lot of the same symptoms Peak TV programs usually have except it's under a magnifying glass. Though timely and well-acted, there are probably better ways to spend $5 a month.

[ariminiria]

How did the streaming wars get into place anyways???

Well this is partly speculation, but here's what I think happened:

So way back when, Netflix started as a mail in rental service, like Blockbuster without having to leave your house. Then Netflix became essentially the first streaming service because they thought hey! Instead of paying for rentals all the time, or having to buy super expensive cable packages to get 5 billion channels you'll never watch all so you can see one TV show or movie every once in a while, how about we round up the people's favorites and put them all in one place for people to watch! Then we do a subscription fee in place of the usual rental charge.

And this became quite successful! And Hulu was formed because that's a pretty good idea! Let's get in on this and make some profit.

So Netflix and Hulu were the top competitors for years because they were really the only two doing it.

Cable people presumably noticed that less people were buying their packages so they had to figure out how to still get that sweet sweet cash. So the parent corporations who owned those things started jumping in.

Blockbuster and Family video died an undeserving death in the meantime.

Disney acquired Hulu, but that wasn't enough for them so instead of putting all Disney stuff on one streaming service they said "let's get more money!" and made Disney+

No clue where HBOmax ties into this. I think it's also just a regular TV channel if I'm not wrong? So probably one of those cable people who scrambled for something to keep profits up.

Amazon was like "let's be annoying too!" and made Prime.

Now here's the thing, if all streaming services have the same stuff on them, people will only buy one. So what's to stop someone from leaving Netflix for Hulu because it's cheaper? So Netflix pops out something called a "Netflix original" and boom, now you've got people interested. They're gonna stay with Netflix.

Whoa, but hold the phone, Disney doesn't like that Netflix is taking their people so they stop letting Netflix buy the rights to some of their most popular movies (aka this is one of the reasons why some shows disappear off of Netflix). Now you can only see that movie on Hulu, or maybe only Disney+

HBO starts getting in on this "originals" thing and Amazon and every other thing under the sun does too.

Then some other service offers a package deal so that you can get all of these streaming services at a discounted rate rather than paying for all of them and bankrupting yourself!

Congrats, you reinvented cable.

[noircartoons]

Imagine being able to watch the cuphead show. (This ask has been made by "Don't have Netflix and too scared to pirate" gang)

ey no don't be scared to pirate! you don't owe netflix shit and you can support the creators in other ways.

here's a kisscartoon link, it's already set on the first episode. Don't click on any of the ads and pop ups, and if it opens a new tab just close it, and you should be good! you can also get a simple antivirus if you're nervous, though some computers and cellphones tend to be made with an antivirus program on them so sometimes you won't even need it. that's all really, the porn ads are annoying AS HELL, but hey you don't have to pay for netflix!

a thing i also used to do is make a month free tirial on netflix and then delete my account one day after it expired, i had so many netflix accounts during that time kwkdkwnfnwk

but yeah, don't be scared of pirating! some things can be a bit harder, i myself don't mess with torrent a lot bc it has some extra steps so it can be a bit more likely to get a virus, but on safer stuff like cartoons and movies? rarely you'll find me even going to the og streaming service kakdkwmdnwk why pay for disney+ and netflix and hbomax when i got my good ol' kisscartoon, watchcartoonsonline and google drive links kIakdkwkkdkwkfk

[smokeybrand]

Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen

The rise of streaming has changed the entire landscape of movie making and i kind of love it. I wrote about how Netflix fundamentally shifted how films are made and distributed a while back so, if your curious on my take about that, you can search for that within this blog. This one isn’t about how the barrier to entry for film has been dramatically lowered but more about how these services have the ridiculous potential to right the wrongs forced upon fans and creators alike, by disingenuous studios. The Snyder Cut is a perfect example of this contradiction. For years, Warner Bros. refused to even entertain the idea of releasing Snyder’s cut of the film because Justice league was a financial flop. The ridiculous ting about that is the fact it failed because Warner made it fail.

In their hurry to compete with the MCU, they mandated the dark tone of Superman because Batman is their cash cow. We had just come of Nolan’s epic Dark Knight trilogy and, instead of understanding why that narrative tone fit for that character and finding one that aligns with Superman, they decided to just make an entire universe of brooding, violent, edgelord, nonsense and hired the guy who bright the most cynical comic book, ever, to the big screen, to do it. The Snyderverse exists because Batman made billions of dollars. lost in the hubris of “Why so serious” money, they turned Superman into Bat, Batman in to the f*cking Punisher, Wonder Woman into Girl Batman, though, that was rectified a little bit in 84 to abysmal results, Aquaman into Dude-Bro Wet Batman, Cyborg into Metal Emo Batman, and Flash into Speedster Spider-man. Warner chose to chase the superficial aesthetic in hope to cash in on that Nolan-adjacent tone, instead of actually building a world and it has crippled the DCEU to this day. That is until ATT came through with the biggest of dick energy.

ATT bought out Warner Media and HBO in an effort to compete with the juggernaut that is Disney and immediately forced the studio to release Snyder’s version of League. There has been an overwhelming amount of fan support for this clusterf*ck of a cinematic universe and, while i don’t particularly care for it because i don’t like how Snyder make’s movies, i recognize that there is a pretty large audience for this stuff. ATT recognized this, too, and since they needed content for their fledgling HBOmax streaming service, they basically forced WB to let Snyder have is due. This flew in the face of everything Warner was trying to do because they had already decided that the Snyderverse was a bust, even though they made it a point to craft the Snyderverse that way in the first place, to standout from the overly kiddy, overly commercial, laughably successful, MCU. They fired Snyder for doing the exact job they hired him to do and then gotbutt0hurt it didn’t work they way they wanted it to. That wasn’t Snyders fault. He delivered exactly what he pitched. Every film Zack Snyder has made, is some semblance of Watchmen. That’s the only movie he knows how to make. You can’t be mad that a man who noodles for catfish, comes home with a Gooch, even though halfway through you decided you wanted trout. ATT understood this, saw the potential duckets to be had, and let Snyder play in his edgelord, emo, universe to his heart’s content on WB’s dime and it paid off.

Zack Snyder’s Justice League is four hours of bloated, unwieldy, brain-dead, spectacle, slathered in the worst kind of superficial pretension and grandiose self-indulgence. It’s so far up it’s own ass and i wouldn’t have it any other way. Zack Snyder was right. This thing’s ridiculous numbers prove that. This is his victory and and he deserves all of the shine. Now, i personally think that Zack Snyder is an awful filmmaker, but i am glad the Snyder Cut exists and i even more supportive of #RestoretheSnyderverse. I don’t care for his take on these characters but dude has a story he wants to tell and he deserves to tell it, especially after how dirty Warner did him him the first place. Listen, i cannot stress enough how much i think Snyder was the wrong choice to bring these characters to life but he had a plan and the studios wrecked it before throwing hum under the bus. Dude knew what he was doing and this version for the film proves that. Proof that Warner hates. They’ve already gone into over time distancing themselves from the project, the president of Warner Media going so far as to say this will be it for the Snyder verse. Nah. Not when it’s doing the numbers it is and ATT is running out of room to horde that cash. On the same day Warner released that statement about the Snyderverse being dead was released, someone leaked that ATT is trying to use HBOmax as an outlet to restore that laughably profitable Snyderverse. If these rumors are true, then the fact that HBOmax exists is how this version of the DCEU continues in direct competition with the Hamadaverse of films. Warner is, effectively, competing with itself at this point and i kind of love it, all thanks to streaming.

I love director’s cuts of films. They almost always come off better than the original, theatrical, release. Studios often butcher and rend a creator’s vision in order to maximize profits by fitting in the most viewing at a theater or alter key elements of a narrative that doesn’t jive with generic test audiences. I understand that the movie industry is a business but this is what happens when you monetize art. It’s absurd. This is why we have seven different versions of Blade Runner and three version of Highlander II. This is why Alien 3 is so f*cking garbage but the Assembly Cut is head-and-shoulder better. Kingdom of Heaven is a perfect example of how the corporate hatchet can ruin a film. Ridley Scott’s initial vision for that movie is three hours and some change long. There’s no way theaters can show enough screenings for that to turn a profit so Warner cut it down to two and a half hours with credits. If you have close to three and a half hours of storytelling but cut out a whole f*cking hour of it, your narrative isn’t going to make any f*cking sense but Warner didn’t care. They made the executive decision to ruin this movie and, for years, i hated this film. But then i saw the director’s cut, that three hour version. Kingdom of Heaven is f*cking brilliant when it’s told the way it was intended to be told. We had to wait for the home media release of the film to see that though because the business of film hobbled the artistic value of the vision. Streaming changes all of that.

Disney has a four hour, re-cut, version for Rise of Skywalker in the works to air exclusively on Disney+. That film is supposed to fix a lot of what Kathleen Kennedy broke with her abject disdain for the Star Wars universe and her ludicrously bloated ego. This wouldn’t have been a thing if not for Disney+, if not for streaming. Four hour epics can turn a profit if the audience is there and you aren’t beholden to the studio-theater system that has gimped film creators for decades. If Netflix was around when i was a kid, maybe Anderson’s intended version of Event Horizon could have been released there after the theatrical version had it’s run, instead of just being lost to time. Event Horizon is an example of how the wrong test audience can solicit a knee jerk hatchet to your film because suburban moms don’t care for satanic visuals and over-the-top gore. If Netflix was around, maybe Jennifer’s Body could have been a hit instead of a cult classic. Maybe the studio could have marketed the film like the director wanted instead of running on the notions that “Megan Fox hot” and selling her sex appeal to teenage boys, only for them to be disappointed when it’s more a nuanced tale of female relationships with underlying tones of feminist lesbianism. Jennifer’s Body was already one of my favorite films but when i saw the director’s cut, i was incensed. They massacred my girl because horny teenagers didn’t like the test screenings. The studios promised these dickbutt horndogs a film that didn’t exist and then got mad when the profits didn’t materialize. Dropping that sh*t on Netflix would have gone a long way to recoup some of them losses.

Now, not all studios are terrible. A24 and Neon are really great at letting their creators, create what they want, but they lack the level of major studio resources to do it. The same joint that brought you Ex Machina can’t afford to deliver the next Avatar or Marvel film but there’s no way Paramount releases something as risky as Under the Skin. Now that streaming exists, you can bypass all of that. Studios can make their more indie or experimental sh*t and drop it directly to the consumer, instead of trying to run it on a money pit imprint like Fox Searchlight. To take it a step further, you can go directly to a joint like Netflix or Amazon Studios, and bypass the bullsh*t studio system as a whole. Hell, you can even leverage that into getting your own sh*t, like the Avatar cats did to Nickelodeon. Paramount needs content for their streaming service, Avatar was shafted by Nickelodeon forcing them to take a run at Netflix but that proved to be a not so ideal partnership, so Paramount came back with a peace offering and now these cats have an entire studio to themselves, just to make more Aang stuff. I am absolutely in love with the leverage these streaming services have over the film industry now. It feels like we can get back to the Nineties where sh*t that might be more risky financially or alienating to large audiences, can still see the light of day. Creators can make the sh*t they want and still get their vision to the audience, even if the studios ruin their flick for theatrical profits.

[un-enfant-immature]

What to expect in digital media in 2020

As we start 2020, the media and entertainment sectors are in flux. New technologies are enabling new types of content, streaming platforms in multiple content categories are spending billions in their fight for market share and the interplay between social platforms and media is a central topic of global political debate (to put it lightly).

As TechCrunch’s media columnist, I spoke to hundreds of entrepreneurs and executives in North America and Europe last year about the shifts underway across everything from vertically-oriented video series to physics engines in games to music royalty payments. Looking toward the year ahead, here are some of the high-level changes I expect we will see in media in 2020, broken into seven categories: film & TV, gaming, visual & audio effects, social media, music, podcasts and publishing.

Film and TV

In film and television, the battle to compete with Netflix continues with more robust competition than last year. In the U.S., Disney is off to a momentous start with 10 million Disney+ subscribers upon its launch in November and some predicting it will hit 25 million by March (including those on free trials or receiving it for free via Disney’s partnership with Verizon). Bundled with its two other streaming properties, Hulu and ESPN+, Disney+ puts Disney alongside Amazon and Netflix as the Big Three.

Consumers will only pay for so many subscriptions, often one, two, or all of the Big Three (since Amazon Prime Video is included with the broader Prime membership) then a smaller service that best aligns with their personal taste and favorite show of the moment.

AT&T’s HBOMax launches in May with a $14.99/month price tag and is unlikely to break into the echelon of the Big Three, but could be a formidable second tier competitor. Alongside it will be Apple TV+. With a $4.99/month subscription, Apple’s service only includes a small number of original productions, an HBO strategy as HBO gets bundled into a larger library. CBS All Access, Showtime, and NBCUniversal’s upcoming (in April) Peacock fall in this camp as well.

Across Europe, regional media conglomerates will find success in expanding local SVOD and AVOD competitors to Netflix that launched last year — or are set to launch in the next few weeks — like BritBox in the UK, Joyn in Germany and Salto in France. Netflix’s growth in coming from outside the U.S. now so its priority is buying more international shows that will compel new demographics to subscribe.

The most interesting new development in 2020 though will be the April launch of Quibi, the $4.99/month service offering premium shows shot for mobile-first viewing that has already secured $1 billion in funding commitments and $150 million in advertising revenue. Quibi shows will be bite-size in length (less than 15 minutes) and vertically-oriented. The company has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into commissioning established names to create dozens of them. Steven Spielberg and Guillermo del Toro each have Quibi programs and NBC and CBS are creating news shows. The terms it is offering are enticing.

Quibi, which plans to release 125 pieces of content (i.e. episodes) per week and spend $470 million on marketing this year, is an all-or-nothing bet with little room to iterate if it doesn’t get it right the first time; it needs hit shows that break into mainstream pop culture to survive. Billionaire founders Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman have set expectations sky-high for the launch; expect the press to slam it in April for failing to meet those expectations and for the platform to redeem itself as a few of its shows gain traction in the months that follow.

Meanwhile, live sports remains the last hope of broadcast TV networks as all other shows go to streaming. Consumers still value watching sports in real-time. Streaming services are coming for live sports too, however, and will make progress toward that goal in 2020. Three weeks ago, DAZN secured the rights to the 2021/22 season of Germany’s Champions League, beating out broadcaster Sky which has shown the matches for the last 20 years. Amazon and YouTube continue to explore bids for sports rights while Facebook and Twitter are stepping back from their efforts. YouTube’s “YouTube TV” and Disney’s “Hulu with Live TV” will cause more consumers to cancel cable TV subscriptions in 2020 and go streaming-only.

The winners in the film & TV sector right now are top production companies. The war for streaming video dominance driving several of the world’s wealthiest companies (and individuals) to pour tens of billions of dollars into content. Large corporations own the distribution platforms here; the only “startups” to enter with strength — DAZN and Quibi — have been launched by billionaires and started with billion-dollar spending commitments. The entrepreneurial opportunity is on the content creation side — with producers creating shows not with software developers creating platforms.

Gaming

The gaming market is predicted to grow nearly 9% year-over-year from $152 billion globally in 2019 to $165 billion in 2020, according to research firm Newzoo, with more than two billion people playing games each year. Gaming is now widespread across all demographic groups. Casual mobile games are responsible for the largest portion of this (and 45% of industry revenue) but PC gaming continues to grow (+4% last year) and console gaming was the fastest growing category last year (+13%).

The big things to watch in gaming this year: cross-platform play, greater focus on social interaction in virtual worlds and the expansion of cloud gaming subscriptions.

Fortnite enticed consumers with the benefits of a cross-platform game that allows players to move between PC, mobile and console and it is setting expectations that other games do the same. Last October we saw the Call of Duty franchise come to mobile and reach a record 100 million downloads in its first week. This trend will continue and it will spread the free-to-play business model that is the norm in mobile games to many PC and console franchises in the process.

Gaming is moving to the social forefront. Many people are turning to massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) like Fortnite and PUBG to socialize, with gameplay as a secondary interest. Games are virtual worlds where players socialize, build things, and own assets much like in the real world. That results in an increasingly fluid interplay between socializing in games and in physical life, much as socializing in the virtual realms of social apps like Instagram or Twitter is now viewed as part of “real world” life.

Expect VCs to bet big on the thesis that “games are the new social networks” in 2020. Large investment firms that a year ago wrote off the category of gaming as “content bets” not fit for VC are now actively hunting for deals.

On this point, there are several startups (like Klang Games, Darewise Entertainment, Singularity 6 and Clockwork Labs) that raised millions in VC funding to create open world games that will launch (in beta at least) in 2020. These are virtual worlds where all players exist in the same instance of the world rather than being capped at 100 or so players per instance. Their visions center of digital realms where people will contribute to in-game economies, create friendships and ultimately earn income just like their “real-world” lives. Think next-gen Second Life. Expect them to take time to seed their worlds with early adopters in 2020 before any of them gain mainstream traction in 2021.

Few are as excited about social interaction in games as Facebook, it seems. Eager to own critical turf in the next paradigm shift of social media, Facebook will accelerate its gaming push this year. In late 2019, it acquired Madrid-based PlayGiga — which was working on cloud gaming and 5G technology — and the studio behind the hit VR game Beat Saber. It also secured exclusive rights to the VR versions of popular games like Ubisoft’s “Assassin’s Creed” and “Splinter Cell” for Oculus. Horizon, its virtual world for social interaction within VR, is expected to launch this year as well.

Facebook is betting on AR/VR as the paradigm shift in consumer computing that will replace mobile; it is pouring billions into its efforts to own the hardware and infrastructure pieces which are several years of R&D away from primetime. In the meantime, the consumer shift to social interaction in virtual worlds is occurring in established formats — mobile, PC, and console — so it will work to build the bridge for consumers from that to the future.

Lastly, cloud gaming was one of last year’s biggest headlines with the launch of Google Stadia and you should expect it to be again this year. By moving games to cloud hosting, consumers can play the highest quality games from lower quality devices, greatly expanding the market of potential players. By bundling many such games into a subscription offering, Google and others hope to entice consumers to try many more games.

As TechCrunch’s Lucas Matney argued, however, cloud gaming is likely a feature for existing subscription gaming platforms — namely Playstation Now and Xbox Game Pass — more so than the basis for a new platform to differentiate. The minor latency inherent in playing a cloud-hosted game makes it unattractive to hardcore gamers (who would rather download the game). Next to Sony and Microsoft’s offerings, Stadia’s limited game selection fails to stand out. The competition will only heat up this year with the entry of Amazon. Google needs to launch the Stadia integration with YouTube and the Share State feature that it promoted in its Stadia announcement to really drive consumer interest.

Visual and audio effects

[localbizlift]

What to expect in digital media in 2020

As we start 2020, the media and entertainment sectors are in flux. New technologies are enabling new types of content, streaming platforms in multiple content categories are spending billions in their fight for market share and the interplay between social platforms and media is a central topic of global political debate (to put it lightly).

As TechCrunch’s media columnist, I spoke to hundreds of entrepreneurs and executives in North America and Europe last year about the shifts underway across everything from vertically-oriented video series to physics engines in games to music royalty payments. Looking toward the year ahead, here are some of the high-level changes I expect we will see in media in 2020, broken into seven categories: film & TV, gaming, visual & audio effects, social media, music, podcasts and publishing.

Film and TV

In film and television, the battle to compete with Netflix continues with more robust competition than last year. In the U.S., Disney is off to a momentous start with 10 million Disney+ subscribers upon its launch in November and some predicting it will hit 25 million by March (including those on free trials or receiving it for free via Disney’s partnership with Verizon). Bundled with its two other streaming properties, Hulu and ESPN+, Disney+ puts Disney alongside Amazon and Netflix as the Big Three.

Consumers will only pay for so many subscriptions, often one, two, or all of the Big Three (since Amazon Prime Video is included with the broader Prime membership) then a smaller service that best aligns with their personal taste and favorite show of the moment.

AT&T’s HBOMax launches in May with a $14.99/month price tag and is unlikely to break into the echelon of the Big Three, but could be a formidable second tier competitor. Alongside it will be Apple TV+. With a $4.99/month subscription, Apple’s service only includes a small number of original productions, an HBO strategy as HBO gets bundled into a larger library. CBS All Access, Showtime, and NBCUniversal’s upcoming (in April) Peacock fall in this camp as well.

Across Europe, regional media conglomerates will find success in expanding local SVOD and AVOD competitors to Netflix that launched last year — or are set to launch in the next few weeks — like BritBox in the UK, Joyn in Germany and Salto in France. Netflix’s growth in coming from outside the U.S. now so its priority is buying more international shows that will compel new demographics to subscribe.

The most interesting new development in 2020 though will be the April launch of Quibi, the $4.99/month service offering premium shows shot for mobile-first viewing that has already secured $1 billion in funding commitments and $150 million in advertising revenue. Quibi shows will be bite-size in length (less than 15 minutes) and vertically-oriented. The company has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into commissioning established names to create dozens of them. Steven Spielberg and Guillermo del Toro each have Quibi programs and NBC and CBS are creating news shows. The terms it is offering are enticing.

Quibi, which plans to release 125 pieces of content (i.e. episodes) per week and spend $470 million on marketing this year, is an all-or-nothing bet with little room to iterate if it doesn’t get it right the first time; it needs hit shows that break into mainstream pop culture to survive. Billionaire founders Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman have set expectations sky-high for the launch; expect the press to slam it in April for failing to meet those expectations and for the platform to redeem itself as a few of its shows gain traction in the months that follow.

Meanwhile, live sports remains the last hope of broadcast TV networks as all other shows go to streaming. Consumers still value watching sports in real-time. Streaming services are coming for live sports too, however, and will make progress toward that goal in 2020. Three weeks ago, DAZN secured the rights to the 2021/22 season of Germany’s Champions League, beating out broadcaster Sky which has shown the matches for the last 20 years. Amazon and YouTube continue to explore bids for sports rights while Facebook and Twitter are stepping back from their efforts. YouTube’s “YouTube TV” and Disney’s “Hulu with Live TV” will cause more consumers to cancel cable TV subscriptions in 2020 and go streaming-only.

The winners in the film & TV sector right now are top production companies. The war for streaming video dominance driving several of the world’s wealthiest companies (and individuals) to pour tens of billions of dollars into content. Large corporations own the distribution platforms here; the only “startups” to enter with strength — DAZN and Quibi — have been launched by billionaires and started with billion-dollar spending commitments. The entrepreneurial opportunity is on the content creation side — with producers creating shows not with software developers creating platforms.

Gaming

The gaming market is predicted to grow nearly 9% year-over-year from $152 billion globally in 2019 to $165 billion in 2020, according to research firm Newzoo, with more than two billion people playing games each year. Gaming is now widespread across all demographic groups. Casual mobile games are responsible for the largest portion of this (and 45% of industry revenue) but PC gaming continues to grow (+4% last year) and console gaming was the fastest growing category last year (+13%).

The big things to watch in gaming this year: cross-platform play, greater focus on social interaction in virtual worlds and the expansion of cloud gaming subscriptions.

Fortnite enticed consumers with the benefits of a cross-platform game that allows players to move between PC, mobile and console and it is setting expectations that other games do the same. Last October we saw the Call of Duty franchise come to mobile and reach a record 100 million downloads in its first week. This trend will continue and it will spread the free-to-play business model that is the norm in mobile games to many PC and console franchises in the process.

Gaming is moving to the social forefront. Many people are turning to massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) like Fortnite and PUBG to socialize, with gameplay as a secondary interest. Games are virtual worlds where players socialize, build things, and own assets much like in the real world. That results in an increasingly fluid interplay between socializing in games and in physical life, much as socializing in the virtual realms of social apps like Instagram or Twitter is now viewed as part of “real world” life.

Expect VCs to bet big on the thesis that “games are the new social networks” in 2020. Large investment firms that a year ago wrote off the category of gaming as “content bets” not fit for VC are now actively hunting for deals.

On this point, there are several startups (like Klang Games, Darewise Entertainment, Singularity 6 and Clockwork Labs) that raised millions in VC funding to create open world games that will launch (in beta at least) in 2020. These are virtual worlds where all players exist in the same instance of the world rather than being capped at 100 or so players per instance. Their visions center of digital realms where people will contribute to in-game economies, create friendships and ultimately earn income just like their “real-world” lives. Think next-gen Second Life. Expect them to take time to seed their worlds with early adopters in 2020 before any of them gain mainstream traction in 2021.

Few are as excited about social interaction in games as Facebook, it seems. Eager to own critical turf in the next paradigm shift of social media, Facebook will accelerate its gaming push this year. In late 2019, it acquired Madrid-based PlayGiga — which was working on cloud gaming and 5G technology — and the studio behind the hit VR game Beat Saber. It also secured exclusive rights to the VR versions of popular games like Ubisoft’s “Assassin’s Creed” and “Splinter Cell” for Oculus. Horizon, its virtual world for social interaction within VR, is expected to launch this year as well.

Facebook is betting on AR/VR as the paradigm shift in consumer computing that will replace mobile; it is pouring billions into its efforts to own the hardware and infrastructure pieces which are several years of R&D away from primetime. In the meantime, the consumer shift to social interaction in virtual worlds is occurring in established formats — mobile, PC, and console — so it will work to build the bridge for consumers from that to the future.

Lastly, cloud gaming was one of last year’s biggest headlines with the launch of Google Stadia and you should expect it to be again this year. By moving games to cloud hosting, consumers can play the highest quality games from lower quality devices, greatly expanding the market of potential players. By bundling many such games into a subscription offering, Google and others hope to entice consumers to try many more games.

As TechCrunch’s Lucas Matney argued, however, cloud gaming is likely a feature for existing subscription gaming platforms — namely Playstation Now and Xbox Game Pass — more so than the basis for a new platform to differentiate. The minor latency inherent in playing a cloud-hosted game makes it unattractive to hardcore gamers (who would rather download the game). Next to Sony and Microsoft’s offerings, Stadia’s limited game selection fails to stand out. The competition will only heat up this year with the entry of Amazon. Google needs to launch the Stadia integration with YouTube and the Share State feature that it promoted in its Stadia announcement to really drive consumer interest.

Visual and audio effects

[pmsocialmedia]

What to expect in digital media in 2020

As we start 2020, the media and entertainment sectors are in flux. New technologies are enabling new types of content, streaming platforms in multiple content categories are spending billions in their fight for market share and the interplay between social platforms and media is a central topic of global political debate (to put it lightly).

As TechCrunch’s media columnist, I spoke to hundreds of entrepreneurs and executives in North America and Europe last year about the shifts underway across everything from vertically-oriented video series to physics engines in games to music royalty payments. Looking toward the year ahead, here are some of the high-level changes I expect we will see in media in 2020, broken into seven categories: film & TV, gaming, visual & audio effects, social media, music, podcasts and publishing.

Film and TV

In film and television, the battle to compete with Netflix continues with more robust competition than last year. In the U.S., Disney is off to a momentous start with 10 million Disney+ subscribers upon its launch in November and some predicting it will hit 25 million by March (including those on free trials or receiving it for free via Disney’s partnership with Verizon). Bundled with its two other streaming properties, Hulu and ESPN+, Disney+ puts Disney alongside Amazon and Netflix as the Big Three.

Consumers will only pay for so many subscriptions, often one, two, or all of the Big Three (since Amazon Prime Video is included with the broader Prime membership) then a smaller service that best aligns with their personal taste and favorite show of the moment.

AT&T’s HBOMax launches in May with a $14.99/month price tag and is unlikely to break into the echelon of the Big Three, but could be a formidable second tier competitor. Alongside it will be Apple TV+. With a $4.99/month subscription, Apple’s service only includes a small number of original productions, an HBO strategy as HBO gets bundled into a larger library. CBS All Access, Showtime, and NBCUniversal’s upcoming (in April) Peacock fall in this camp as well.

Across Europe, regional media conglomerates will find success in expanding local SVOD and AVOD competitors to Netflix that launched last year — or are set to launch in the next few weeks — like BritBox in the UK, Joyn in Germany and Salto in France. Netflix’s growth in coming from outside the U.S. now so its priority is buying more international shows that will compel new demographics to subscribe.

The most interesting new development in 2020 though will be the April launch of Quibi, the $4.99/month service offering premium shows shot for mobile-first viewing that has already secured $1 billion in funding commitments and $150 million in advertising revenue. Quibi shows will be bite-size in length (less than 15 minutes) and vertically-oriented. The company has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into commissioning established names to create dozens of them. Steven Spielberg and Guillermo del Toro each have Quibi programs and NBC and CBS are creating news shows. The terms it is offering are enticing.

Quibi, which plans to release 125 pieces of content (i.e. episodes) per week and spend $470 million on marketing this year, is an all-or-nothing bet with little room to iterate if it doesn’t get it right the first time; it needs hit shows that break into mainstream pop culture to survive. Billionaire founders Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman have set expectations sky-high for the launch; expect the press to slam it in April for failing to meet those expectations and for the platform to redeem itself as a few of its shows gain traction in the months that follow.

Meanwhile, live sports remains the last hope of broadcast TV networks as all other shows go to streaming. Consumers still value watching sports in real-time. Streaming services are coming for live sports too, however, and will make progress toward that goal in 2020. Three weeks ago, DAZN secured the rights to the 2021/22 season of Germany’s Champions League, beating out broadcaster Sky which has shown the matches for the last 20 years. Amazon and YouTube continue to explore bids for sports rights while Facebook and Twitter are stepping back from their efforts. YouTube’s “YouTube TV” and Disney’s “Hulu with Live TV” will cause more consumers to cancel cable TV subscriptions in 2020 and go streaming-only.

The winners in the film & TV sector right now are top production companies. The war for streaming video dominance driving several of the world’s wealthiest companies (and individuals) to pour tens of billions of dollars into content. Large corporations own the distribution platforms here; the only “startups” to enter with strength — DAZN and Quibi — have been launched by billionaires and started with billion-dollar spending commitments. The entrepreneurial opportunity is on the content creation side — with producers creating shows not with software developers creating platforms.

Gaming

The gaming market is predicted to grow nearly 9% year-over-year from $152 billion globally in 2019 to $165 billion in 2020, according to research firm Newzoo, with more than two billion people playing games each year. Gaming is now widespread across all demographic groups. Casual mobile games are responsible for the largest portion of this (and 45% of industry revenue) but PC gaming continues to grow (+4% last year) and console gaming was the fastest growing category last year (+13%).

The big things to watch in gaming this year: cross-platform play, greater focus on social interaction in virtual worlds and the expansion of cloud gaming subscriptions.

Fortnite enticed consumers with the benefits of a cross-platform game that allows players to move between PC, mobile and console and it is setting expectations that other games do the same. Last October we saw the Call of Duty franchise come to mobile and reach a record 100 million downloads in its first week. This trend will continue and it will spread the free-to-play business model that is the norm in mobile games to many PC and console franchises in the process.

Gaming is moving to the social forefront. Many people are turning to massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) like Fortnite and PUBG to socialize, with gameplay as a secondary interest. Games are virtual worlds where players socialize, build things, and own assets much like in the real world. That results in an increasingly fluid interplay between socializing in games and in physical life, much as socializing in the virtual realms of social apps like Instagram or Twitter is now viewed as part of “real world” life.

Expect VCs to bet big on the thesis that “games are the new social networks” in 2020. Large investment firms that a year ago wrote off the category of gaming as “content bets” not fit for VC are now actively hunting for deals.

On this point, there are several startups (like Klang Games, Darewise Entertainment, Singularity 6 and Clockwork Labs) that raised millions in VC funding to create open world games that will launch (in beta at least) in 2020. These are virtual worlds where all players exist in the same instance of the world rather than being capped at 100 or so players per instance. Their visions center of digital realms where people will contribute to in-game economies, create friendships and ultimately earn income just like their “real-world” lives. Think next-gen Second Life. Expect them to take time to seed their worlds with early adopters in 2020 before any of them gain mainstream traction in 2021.

Few are as excited about social interaction in games as Facebook, it seems. Eager to own critical turf in the next paradigm shift of social media, Facebook will accelerate its gaming push this year. In late 2019, it acquired Madrid-based PlayGiga — which was working on cloud gaming and 5G technology — and the studio behind the hit VR game Beat Saber. It also secured exclusive rights to the VR versions of popular games like Ubisoft’s “Assassin’s Creed” and “Splinter Cell” for Oculus. Horizon, its virtual world for social interaction within VR, is expected to launch this year as well.

Facebook is betting on AR/VR as the paradigm shift in consumer computing that will replace mobile; it is pouring billions into its efforts to own the hardware and infrastructure pieces which are several years of R&D away from primetime. In the meantime, the consumer shift to social interaction in virtual worlds is occurring in established formats — mobile, PC, and console — so it will work to build the bridge for consumers from that to the future.

Lastly, cloud gaming was one of last year’s biggest headlines with the launch of Google Stadia and you should expect it to be again this year. By moving games to cloud hosting, consumers can play the highest quality games from lower quality devices, greatly expanding the market of potential players. By bundling many such games into a subscription offering, Google and others hope to entice consumers to try many more games.

As TechCrunch’s Lucas Matney argued, however, cloud gaming is likely a feature for existing subscription gaming platforms — namely Playstation Now and Xbox Game Pass — more so than the basis for a new platform to differentiate. The minor latency inherent in playing a cloud-hosted game makes it unattractive to hardcore gamers (who would rather download the game). Next to Sony and Microsoft’s offerings, Stadia’s limited game selection fails to stand out. The competition will only heat up this year with the entry of Amazon. Google needs to launch the Stadia integration with YouTube and the Share State feature that it promoted in its Stadia announcement to really drive consumer interest.

Visual and audio effects

via Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/36CfMsa

[stayskrunchyinmilk]

Stays Krunchy in Milk Episode 321: Too Beautiful to Eat

Once again, your fav crew is back on the set and we hit the ground running. I don’t think we have ever gotten to a show title this early in an episode. We chat intoxication and why it can be bad, good, hilarious, and dangerous. We discuss cord cutting and streaming services as Disney+ loom on the horizon. Talking Disney of course means we talk Marvel. Deep dives on the internet lead to a discussion on phones and Box shading Tee for liking his messages with his ol’ hating ass.

Alternate Title: It’s Hard Out Here for an Avenger 

#Comedy #Culture #Social #Foodie #Podcast #230HuronRdEast #SusysSoup #DietaryRestrictions #Swine #RedMeat #Swan #Goose #Drunk #Stoned #TheHunchbackofNotreDame #Hulu #Spotify #Netflix #HBOMax #Sling #PlaystationVue #Marvel #MCU #Android #IOS #ConsoleWars

[aion-rsa]

The Mare of Easttown Finale Broke HBO Max

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

Late on the Sunday night of Memorial Day weekend, WarnerMedia did the unthinkable: they disappointed my mother. 

At precisely 10:09 p.m. ET, the following text flashed across my phone screen “Omg. HBO is down! Too many people trying to watch Mare”

Sure enough, the anticipated finale for crime drama Mare of Easttown was not loading on the WarnerMedia streaming service HBO Max and it would remain inaccessible for around 25 minutes. The Internet reacted with disappointment similar to Mother Bojalad. 

Everyone checking Twitter to confirm @hbomax is down during #MareOfEasttown finale. pic.twitter.com/xG4Ml7094R

— Cat Williams (@dizzycatdesign) May 31, 2021

#MareOfEasttown the IT guys at HBO Max right now. pic.twitter.com/5NnaKhX7d4

— Will Leggett (@wtleggett) May 31, 2021

How authentic is Mare of Easttown? HBO Max worked fine for me for six episodes but now is refusing to load for the seventh, in what I assume is a tribute to the Phillies' bullpen.

— Michael Baumann (@MichaelBaumann) May 31, 2021

Thankfully, HBO Max got itself into fighting shape and Mare of Easttown was eventually available to stream. Viewers got to see the shocking conclusion to the Kate Winslet miniseries. The outage, however, bodes ominously for streaming television’s future. 

Sometimes things break on the Internet. The World Wide Web is a sophisticated, sensitive beast spawned from Transatlantic cables, millions of computers and servers, and just a dash of imagination. Longtime Internet users have grown accustomed to the occasionally imperfect nature of the medium. Occasionally things fall apart, the servers cannot hold. But outages and imperfections in our streaming enterprises cannot remain the status quo now that real money is involved.

Just about every major media conglomerate has made clear that the future of television (and in some sad cases, movies as well) will be streamed. Netflix leads the pack with 208 million subscribers worldwide. It’s followed by Amazon Prime Video (175 million), Tencent (123 million), iQIYI (119 million), and Disney+ (103 million). That’s nearly three-quarters of a billion people subscribing to just five streaming services (granted, the number is undoubtedly smaller as people subscribe to several streamers). 

According to a recent study conducted by three major media companies, 25 million U.S. households are expected to cancel their cable subscriptions within the next five years in favor of streaming. That number is on top of the 25 million U.S. households that have already cut the cord. Streaming will soon be the norm, if it’s not already. And that all makes it a bit strange that some streamers don’t seem fully prepared to handle the technical burden of all that incoming traffic. 

In HBO Max’s case with the Mare of Easttown finale, it wasn’t technically that much traffic to begin with. WarnerMedia’s streaming service held up just fine for big cinematic releases like Wonder Woman 1984 and Zack Snyder’s Justice League. Though viewership numbers in the streaming world remain unreliable, it makes sense that those big IPs would garner more total viewers than an HBO crime drama. Last week’s penultimate Mare garnered roughly 1.2 million viewers, which is excellent for pay cable but not an insurmountable technical challenge. 

The issue likely lies in the way that we’ve traditionally watched television. For nearly the entirety of the medium’s existence, popular TV shows were appointment viewing. A viewer must be on their couch to watch an episode at a precise time or risk never seeing it again. In the streaming world, timeliness doesn’t matter as much anymore, with many viewers happy to watch a show whenever they get around to it. In fact, streamers like Netflix and Hulu just unceremoniously drop their new content at 12:01 a.m. PT. 

Since Mare of Easttown was an HBO series that airs on terrestrial television as well, many streamers wanted to watch right at 10 p.m. so as to not get left behind. Unfortunately, it would seem as though that much traffic targeted at one moment was too much for HBO Max’s servers to bear.

We’re aware some customers may be experiencing issues streaming #HBOMax and appreciate your patience as we work to resolve this as quickly as possible.

— HBOMaxHelp (@HBOMaxHelp) May 31, 2021

With WarnerMedia still trying to bridge the streaming and traditional TV worlds gap through HBO and HBO Max, that kind of delay just shouldn’t be happening with streaming enterprises anymore. What’s more is that Warner and HBO have gone all in on the Game of Thrones prequel train, having commissioned no fewer than six spinoffs to the network’s titanic hit. Once those start rolling out of the gate, HBO Max can’t afford to be caught with its streaming pants down.

Ironically, reinforcements for HBO Max’s technical issues might be on the way thanks to a traditionally cable-focused company. AT&T recently admitted defeat in its stewardship of WarnerMedia and spun the company off into a merger with Discovery, Inc. Though Discovery is best known as a major cable player, the launch of its bespoke discovery+ streaming app went off without a hitch earlier this year. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

With the combined powers of WarnerMedia and Discovery, perhaps the next appointment-viewing HBO crime drama won’t disappoint my mom.

The post The Mare of Easttown Finale Broke HBO Max appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2SKJklk

[amostexcellentblog]

Even if greenlighting a JL sequel is too expensive for a streaming service I feel like HBOmax could easily greenlight a Superman miniseries with Henry and Amy that would cost about the same as a prestige series like The Crown or GoT. It wouldn’t have the same scope as MoS, but it wouldn’t look CW cheap either. Get a good screenwriter and it won’t really matter, after BvS and JL the characters need a more intimate storyline anyway.

You can do a similar thing with Affleck, see if he’ll rework his Batman script into a miniseries.

Do that and then see where to go from there based on audience reaction. It would be so easy to do this, and see how it makes sense as a way to compete with Disney+, but that would require WB not to be vengeful idiots.